Has Bates Gone?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Whitejock said:
Simon, you missed my point. I was simply stating that LUST announced that at the outset a takeover was the intention. However, as we all know in business, you can't always get what you want (to quote a certain Mr Jagger), and you most certainly will not get what you want with Bates - you'll only get what he wants. So yes, a takeover may have been fact at the start, but gawd knows where we are now.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point he said recently (as in Friday/Yesterday) that it was a takeover that was currently in the final stages.
 
Simon21-LUFC said:
I think you missed my point he said recently (as in Friday/Yesterday) that it was a takeover that was currently in the final stages.
Click to expand...

So the Chairman of LUST stated on Friday or Saturday that it was definitely a takeover & in the final stages? Who did he say this to, and where is it published? I can't find it. It also seems to directly contradict the minutes from Wednesday's LUST meeting, where it was stated that:

"The length of time also points to a takeover not investment".

The words 'points to' suggests opinion, not fact. There is nothing in the minutes to suggest that it is a fact that a takeover is being discussed. Again, I accept that this was the original intention of the negotiating team, as per LUST's announcement, however, we have absolutely nothing in the public domain to suggest that this is still the case. Admittedly, it is also the case that there is nothing in the public domain to suggest that anything has changed. But not one of us knows. We either assume or hope. Therefore no-one can call it one way or the other factually. It's all guesswork, intelligent or otherwise.
 
Whitejock said:
So the Chairman of LUST stated on Friday or Saturday that it was definitely a takeover & in the final stages? Who did he say this to, and where is it published? I can't find it. It also seems to directly contradict the minutes from Wednesday's LUST meeting, where it was stated that:

"The length of time also points to a takeover not investment".

The words 'points to' suggests opinion, not fact. There is nothing in the minutes to suggest that it is a fact that a takeover is being discussed. Again, I accept that this was the original intention of the negotiating team, as per LUST's announcement, however, we have absolutely nothing in the public domain to suggest that this is still the case. Admittedly, it is also the case that there is nothing in the public domain to suggest that anything has changed. But not one of us knows. We either assume or hope. Therefore no-one can call it one way or the other factually. It's all guesswork, intelligent or otherwise.
Click to expand...

He's on WACCOE and has been stating it throughout the weekend in conjunction with the Square Ball and someone who used to work for Yorkshire Radio.
 
I wish this crap was finished!! Bates is not selling the club right now because nobody has come up with enough money to buy the club outright. He is trying to get some investment in, but he will retain the majority share. Bates is a cnut who may well fcuk up the potential cash injection as well. Nothing is being said because the talks are stuttering, Bates is okay with talks slowing down, it allows him to add pressure and possibly have someone else come along with cash. We know Bates is in this for himself, and this once again proves that point. Bates selling up? Only if someone can show him the money!!
 
Whitejock said:
Don't do WACCOE or SB. What exactly has he been saying?
Click to expand...

Basically the TSB and ex YR guys have been saying it's a takeover that has one or two hurdles to overcome before completion and he agreed with them saying there's been something delaying it but he still thinks it will go through. Apparently LUST have lodged everything they've found out with an impartial 3rd party and will reveal it all when the deal is done/collapses (although he just said when it's done).
 
Simon21-LUFC said:
Basically the TSB and ex YR guys have been saying it's a takeover that has one or two hurdles to overcome before completion and he agreed with them saying there's been something delaying it but he still thinks it will go through. Apparently LUST have lodged everything they've found out with an impartial 3rd party and will reveal it all when the deal is done/collapses (although he just said when it's done).
Click to expand...

Joined WACCOE to be nosey, Simon, but FM! I can't find anything of note due to the amount of crap on there. Got a link(s)?
 
Whitejock said:
Joined WACCOE to be nosey, Simon, but FM! I can't find anything of note due to the amount of crap on there. Got a link(s)?
Click to expand...

Can't find it but someone's quoted the key part of it:

"still cant say anymore other than the TSB post about a delay seems true. i dont believe it will slow things but a degree of trust between buyers and the current club board has been shattered."
 
There's a lot more info on Waccoe than on here!

Granted there's a lot of poop on there as well, but thats only because its about 10 x as big as any other Leeds only forum... You just need to fish out the info you want
 
Whitejock - the long-term investment will include a full appraisal of all the options, which include a takeover or just money coming in. If it was only the latter, we woulod definitley not have had the blackout of everything LUFC over the last month.

The scenario may have changed and Bates may now have (or may have always) decided there is no way he is selling up. But it is a fact that the people who went in there had the intention to buy the club outright.

Which leaves 3 options which are again absolutely correct, and which you have successfully up to now managed to deflect from:

a) the takeover will happen
b) the takeover will fail
c) a third party (or more) will invest and either take a majority or a minority stake.

My point is that those options will never change, and anyone claiming to know anything about which if the 3 is more likely is unable to substantiate it.

Your sidelining arguments are superfluous and irrelevant, WJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back